What makes Catholicism true compared to Eastern Orthodoxy?

[ericc]

Well, you’re talking to an Orthodox, so our interpretations of Matthew 16:18 are different.

Can you point me to a resource that show the Orthodox interpretation? I am concerned because if all the 5 sees have fallen into heresy, then Jesus must have lied to Peter, or it meant something else. Before this Honorius case, with the exception of Rome, the other sees have fallen into heresy one time or the other. If according to you that Rome also fell, then my Catholic understanding must be wrong about this guarantee given by Christ to Peter. I saw a couple of days ago that the Orthodox stance is the same as the RCC orthodoxinfo.com/general/averk_trueorth.aspx which preserve the Church from error. If all of the 5 sees were not preserved from error (at least 1 of them must be preserved) , then I must have misunderstood what that chapter/verse mean.

That being said, I’ll address Maximus. Plainly speaking, Maximus was wrong. He was often placed in a position to keep the Latins and Greeks together. And once settled the matter of the filioque. However, Maximus’ explanation of the filioque to the Greeks was explicitly rejected at Florence. So this isn’t the only matter for Maximus where he was wrong. And it is pretty clear in the acta of the Third Council of Constantinople and the letter of Pope Leo II that Maximus was wrong.

How did you or anyone else prove St Maximus wrong in this matter? You provide no evidence. A mistake elsewhere doesn’t mean he is wrong in this particular subject. You most probably been wrong before in other things but that does not mean you are wrong in all things. I am curious how you made that determination for Maximus on this subject. I have not come across any information about this mistake of St Maximus yet. If you could , please direct me to the relevant resource so that I can educate myself on this.

And sure, Pope Agatho may have said that, but you must also acknowledge that Pope Leo II condemned Honorius for neglect AND teaching heresy explicitly in his letters to the emperor. I brushed off your 120 year old article as wrong by going to the original material. I read Honorius’ letter, Leo’s letter (both in Latin), and the acta of the Third Council of Constantinople (in English translation). The 3rd condemned Hororius in the same exact manner as the rest of the heretics, who taught heresy. Then the old article of yours doesn’t even consider Leo’s letter in its entirety. If you read the whole thing, it’s pretty blatant that he condemns Honorius for teaching heresy. And just because Honorius had a poor understanding of dithelitism, it does not excuse him from teaching that Christ had only one will.

Pope Agatho and his predecessors were wrong and you are right? They were closer to the scene than you. If the Popes were all wrong why didn’t anyone correct them? In fact there is no evidence that Agatho’s letter is wrong in content. They can also read Greek and/or Latin. And they knew the full contents of letters which were burnt after the Council that you have no access to.

The quotes that you allude to:

“and also Honorius, who did not illustrate this apostolic church of apostolic tradition in doctrine, but in resounding treachery it was endeavored to subvert the immaculate faith [G., he permitted the immaculate to be stained].”

“and one with these the Roman Honorius, who consented to have stained the immaculate rule of apostolic tradition, which he received from his predecessors;”

Show me which part of these 2 quotes unambiguously state that Honorius TAUGHT heresy? I read no Latin, so you will need to point out that particular phrase. Staining the immaculate rule of apostolic tradition does not equate to teaching heresy.

All Sergius asked of Honorius is silence in the Church on the 1 will or 2 wills subject. One can’t extrapolate silence to teaching of monothelitism by Honorius and there is no evidence to show that he did. (Which incidentally would pose the question why would the Patriarch of Constantinople need Rome’s approval unless Rome has primacy.)

 

[ericc]

And besides, the secretary’s explanation makes no sense. Honorius was explicitly told that some say Christ has two wills (human and divine) and that they might act contrary to one another. Simply stating Honorius was only talking about the human will would make no sense in the given context, because the issue of Christ having two human wills was never raised.

Pope John (IV defended Honorius in a letter to the Emperor Constantine Apologia pro Honorio Papa in AD641.

*In such wise our predecessor Honorius answered Sergius, that there were not in the Redeemer two contrarice voluntates, i.e. also a voluntas in membris, as He had assumed nothing of the sin of the first man. The Redeemer did indeed assume our nature, but not the culpa criminis. Let, then, no unintelligent critic blame Honorius, that he speaks only of the human and not also of the divine nature, but let him know that he answered, that concerning which the patriarch inquired. Where the wound is, there the healing is applied. *

Here, Pope John says that Honorius was merely stating that Christ has one human will as opposed to two human wills, one before the Fall and one after. But why would Honorius answer in that manner? It is because Sergius did not ask of Honorius a plain monothelitism question. Cyrus, Patriarch of Alexandria, formulated the formula :

“That this same Christ one and the Son, performs both the actions which belong to him as God, and those which are human, by one, sole, and theandric operation.”

However Honorius response was: "You must confess, with us, one Christ our Lord, operating in either nature, divine OR human actions [in uirisque naturis divina vel humana operantem] which is clearly not of the monothelite formula which would be “operating divine** and **human actions”

If a person were asked a question A and the response instead of A is B, then one must conclude that the question was misunderstood. And if one misunderstand the question asked, then one couldn’t be guilty of A when in one’s mind it was B. There was allegation that Sergius omitted the key word theandric or some other key word from his letter to Honorius but I haven’t locate a source to prove it. I’ll keep that missing piece KIV.

St Maximus clearly understood what was in Honorius mind and he repeated this in the Disputation with Pyrrhus.

Furthermore, in Honorius second letter, it clearly demonstrated his orthodoxy.

“ This we wished to bring to the knowledge of your fraternity by this letter. Moreover, with regard to the ecclesiastical dogma, and what we ought to hold and teach, on account of the simplicity of men and to avoid controversies, we must, as I have already said, assert neither one nor two energies in the Mediator between God and men, but must confess that both natures are naturally united in the one Christ, that each in communion with the other worked and acted (ioperantes atque operatrices; Greek, i vepy ova as /cal ttpater ucaf) ; the divine works the divine, and the Human performs that which is of the flesh (these are the well-known words of Leo I.), with* out separation and without mixture, and without the nature of God being changed into the manhood, or the human nature into the Godhead." A History of the Councils of the Church From the Original Documents by the Right Rev Charles Joseph Hefele vol 5.

Any doubt as to what Honorius preaches is removed. This is orthodox. But he is still guilty of approving silence i.e. neglect. when he should have promoted the truth.

 

[Rohzek]

I’ll have to answer in multiple posts due to space limitations.

Can you point me to a resource that show the Orthodox interpretation? I am concerned because if all the 5 sees have fallen into heresy, then Jesus must have lied to Peter, or it meant something else. Before this Honorius case, with the exception of Rome, the other sees have fallen into heresy one time or the other. If according to you that Rome also fell, then my Catholic understanding must be wrong about this guarantee given by Christ to Peter. I saw a couple of days ago that the Orthodox stance is the same as the RCC orthodoxinfo.com/general/averk_trueorth.aspx which preserve the Church from error. If all of the 5 sees were not preserved from error (at least 1 of them must be preserved) , then I must have misunderstood what that chapter/verse mean.

Ah, you’re referring to the theory of pentarchy. Orthodox don’t believe pentarchy was ever established by divine command, but merely that it was a useful means of governing the church. In fact, almost every patriarchal seat, with the exception of Jerusalem, was the location of major Roman political and commercial centers. This is why Jerusalem took so long to become a patriarchate despite its central role in the origins of Christianity. A good prepper for this understanding of church governance can be found in Timothy Ware’s The Orthodox Church. In answer to your other question, the Orthodox do not believe that if the 5 patriarchates fall into heresy then all is lost. This is not so. For the Orthodox, as long as there are believers who hold strong to true doctrine, whether it be a few monks, laymen, or a simple parish priest, then the gates of hell have yet to triumph against the Church established by our Lord Jesus Christ.

How did you or anyone else prove St Maximus wrong in this matter? You provide no evidence. A mistake elsewhere doesn’t mean he is wrong in this particular subject. You most probably been wrong before in other things but that does not mean you are wrong in all things. I am curious how you made that determination for Maximus on this subject. I have not come across any information about this mistake of St Maximus yet. If you could , please direct me to the relevant resource so that I can educate myself on this.

I’m just merely taking the words of the Sixth Ecumenical Council and Pope Leo II over that of St. Maximus, despite the fact of how much respect I have for the man. What is more respectable? One church father or the consensus of an ecumenical council?

Pope Agatho and his predecessors were wrong and you are right? They were closer to the scene than you. If the Popes were all wrong why didn’t anyone correct them? In fact there is no evidence that Agatho’s letter is wrong in content. They can also read Greek and/or Latin. And they knew the full contents of letters which were burnt after the Council that you have no access to.

We’re doing history here, so I do not find it productive to yield authority on historical matters to my predecessors. If that were the case, then there would be no point in doing history. Instead, let us consult the sources, both primary and secondary, and see for ourselves.

As with any heresy of the day, the materials onto which they were written were almost always burned. This might seem suspicious to us today, where us moderns are always wanting to see for ourselves, but alas the past peoples did not have the same concerns as us. That being said, we still have the letters of Honorius with us, so it is not difficult to see if Agatho was wrong. And besides, was Agatho even considering the circumstances of Honorius when he wrote his letter? Or was Agatho merely asserting the historical fact that the papacy had up to that point maintained orthodox faith far better than the other patriarchates? To me it isn’t so clear. But if you wish to assert the former position, then we easily have recourse to Honorius’ letter as well as the acta of the 6th council, and Leo’s letter.

 

[Rohzek]

The quotes that you allude to:

“and also Honorius, who did not illustrate this apostolic church of apostolic tradition in doctrine, but in resounding treachery it was endeavored to subvert the immaculate faith [G., he permitted the immaculate to be stained].”

“and one with these the Roman Honorius, who consented to have stained the immaculate rule of apostolic tradition, which he received from his predecessors;”

Show me which part of these 2 quotes unambiguously state that Honorius TAUGHT heresy? I read no Latin, so you will need to point out that particular phrase. Staining the immaculate rule of apostolic tradition does not equate to teaching heresy.

Sure. Let us look at the whole text in order to gain a fuller understand to which you highlighted.

"“Equally we anathemize the authors of new errors, that is, Bishop Theodorus of Pharan, Cyrus of Alexandria, Sergius, Paul, Peter the successors of the Church of Constantinople; [enemies, that is, instigators as governors in greatness] as bishops in greatness, and also Honorius, who did not illustrate this apostolic church of apostolic tradition in doctrine, but in resounding treachery it was endeavored to subvert the immaculate faith [G., he permitted the immaculate to be stained].”

Here Leo lists a number of major monthelite heretics. And he lists Honorius as one of them. The second excerpt is especially important in this regard.

"Truly most pious emperor in the grace of the Holy Spirit, and (who) endured the work before the pure will of the Christian faith, who struggled to purify the catholic church of God from the upmost erroneous efforts of heretics in sin, and whoever was able to generate offense to the Christian people, are made removed from the midst of the church of God, and all authors of heretical assertions, they are condemned by the consensual council for venerating [errors], they are thrown out from the union of the catholic church, that is, Bishop Theodorus of Pharan, Cyrus of Alexandria, Sergius, Paul, Phyrrhus and Peter, those bishops of Constantinople, and one with these the Roman Honorius, who consented to have stained the immaculate rule of apostolic tradition, which he received from his predecessors;"

In the second quote, Honorius is called a heretical author and venerator. He is condemned even more so specifically because his case was a big embarrassment to Rome, which had largely remained a bulwark against previous major heresies.

All Sergius asked of Honorius is silence in the Church on the 1 will or 2 wills subject. One can’t extrapolate silence to teaching of monothelitism by Honorius and there is no evidence to show that he did. (Which incidentally would pose the question why would the Patriarch of Constantinople need Rome’s approval unless Rome has primacy.)

If I recall correctly, Sergius wrote in Greek, which I cannot read. However, from what I can gather from Honorius’ letter is that it was Honorius who insisted on silence on these doctrinal matters. Instead of asserting correct doctrine, Honorius argued that publicly, the matter should not be discussed because it was a source of division amongst the church. And Honorius was right to say such, because it was. However, Honorius also said that Christ had one will as a matter of personal opinion. Arguably this does not constitute as ex cathedra. However, it still remains that Honorius personally taught and affirmed heresy to Sergius. This is explicitly why Honorius’ letter proved so invaluable to the monothelite heretics.

 

[Micosil]

I think, atleast from my perspective, it’s a better statement to say that Catholicism is closer to the truth than Orthodoxy. Saying “Catholicism is true compared to EO” sounds like what is true in Orthodoxy is rejected. And the vast majority of what they profess is also professed by the Catholic Church – most importantly, their celebration of the Sacraments is valid, for their bishops are in the line of Apostolic succession, being legitimate successors of the Apostles of our Lord.

The reason I claim Catholicism is closer to the truth than Orthodoxy is because of the biggest difference between the two: what the Papacy means.

For me, Scott Hahn’s line of reasoning, which traces the keys given to Peter in Matthew 16 to Isaiah 22 and the office of a royal chamberlain, steward, vizier or “prime minister” of a royal Davidic kingdom, makes a lot of sense. It doesn’t denote a primus inter pares kind of recognition or place of honor, but an actual position of authority, which would have successive incumbents who would replace the one that came before them, and not a “one-time” deal.

 

[Rohzek]

Pope John (IV defended Honorius in a letter to the Emperor Constantine Apologia pro Honorio Papa in AD641.

*In such wise our predecessor Honorius answered Sergius, that there were not in the Redeemer two contrarice voluntates, i.e. also a voluntas in membris, as He had assumed nothing of the sin of the first man. The Redeemer did indeed assume our nature, but not the culpa criminis. Let, then, no unintelligent critic blame Honorius, that he speaks only of the human and not also of the divine nature, but let him know that he answered, that concerning which the patriarch inquired. Where the wound is, there the healing is applied. *

Here, Pope John says that Honorius was merely stating that Christ has one human will as opposed to two human wills, one before the Fall and one after. But why would Honorius answer in that manner? It is because Sergius did not ask of Honorius a plain monothelitism question. Cyrus, Patriarch of Alexandria, formulated the formula :

“That this same Christ one and the Son, performs both the actions which belong to him as God, and those which are human, by one, sole, and theandric operation.”

However Honorius response was: "You must confess, with us, one Christ our Lord, operating in either nature, divine OR human actions [in uirisque naturis divina vel humana operantem] which is clearly not of the monothelite formula which would be “operating divine** and** human actions”

If a person were asked a question A and the response instead of A is B, then one must conclude that the question was misunderstood. And if one misunderstand the question asked, then one couldn’t be guilty of A when in one’s mind it was B. There was allegation that Sergius omitted the key word theandric or some other key word from his letter to Honorius but I haven’t locate a source to prove it. I’ll keep that missing piece KIV.

St Maximus clearly understood what was in Honorius mind and he repeated this in the Disputation with Pyrrhus.

Furthermore, in Honorius second letter, it clearly demonstrated his orthodoxy.

“ This we wished to bring to the knowledge of your fraternity by this letter. Moreover, with regard to the ecclesiastical dogma, and what we ought to hold and teach, on account of the simplicity of men and to avoid controversies, we must, as I have already said, assert neither one nor two energies in the Mediator between God and men, but must confess that both natures are naturally united in the one Christ, that each in communion with the other worked and acted (ioperantes atque operatrices; Greek, i vepy ova as /cal ttpater ucaf) ; the divine works the divine, and the Human performs that which is of the flesh (these are the well-known words of Leo I.), with* out separation and without mixture, and without the nature of God being changed into the manhood, or the human nature into the Godhead." A History of the Councils of the Church From the Original Documents by the Right Rev Charles Joseph Hefele vol 5.

Any doubt as to what Honorius preaches is removed. This is orthodox. But he is still guilty of approving silence i.e. neglect. when he should have promoted the truth.

This explanation still doesn’t make sense if we look at the letter of Honorius. Here is another excerpt of what he wrote, where he clearly considered both the divine and human natures of Christ. Here is a rough translation:

Dum profecto divinitas nec crucifigi potuit, nec passiones humanas experiri vel perpeti; sed propter ineffabilem conjunctionem humanae divinaeque naturae, idcirco et ubique Deus dicitur pati, et humanitas ex coelo cum divinitate descendisse.

While truly the godhead is neither able to be crucified nor to have endured human sufferings, it is because of the ineffable conjunction of human and divine natures that it is therefore said everywhere that God suffered and descended from heaven with humanity.

He then goes on to say that Christ had one will. It is clear from this letter that Honorius considered both the human and divine natures of Christ.

As for the second letter you speak of, it actually testifies as to how poorly Honorius understood dithelitism. He clearly thought that having two wills meant having two different persons of Christ. That was never the position of orthodoxy. However, he clearly felt that in order to maintain the single personhood of Christ, Christ must therefore have one will instead of two.

 

[benjamindt]

That makes a lot of sense. I mean, what happens if two patriarchs disagree? A council would have to be formed, right?

I don’t think councils can be generated so easily in EO. I don’t think they’ve had one since the first seven anyway.

I suppose that the patriarchs disagree on many things, but they don’t recognize a head of the church on earth, so they just do their own thing.

 

[Kmon23]

I don’t think councils can be generated so easily in EO. I don’t think they’ve had one since the first seven anyway.

I suppose that the patriarchs disagree on many things, but they don’t recognize a head of the church on earth, so they just do their own thing.

We’ve definitely had other councils, such as the Synod of Jerusalem of 1672, Synod of Jassy, and the Hesychast Synods.
They just don’t have the unanimous renowned ecumenical status as other synods (although the 879 council and Hesychast Synods may be a possibility).

And it is true that councils are more difficult to convene in Orthodoxy, since during the time of the first millennium, councils were convened by the emperor (and now we don’t). But nevertheless, it is also true from an Orthodox standpoint that such councils are not as necessary within the last millennium, since there has not been heresy in the past millennium equal in magnitude as the first millennium heresies like Arianism. That aside, we have still convened councils, and the impending 2016 council is no different.

And patriarchs disagreeing etc., well those usually don’t pertain to the faith (doctrinal disagreement) but more to do with jurisdiction issues, administrative etc., so they’re not that problematic. They’ll solve themselves out with time If anything, such issues have always existed in Orthodoxy, first millennium included before the schism since such a strong centralized Vatican/Papacy was not present in the East during the first millennium anyways.

 

[FollowChrist34]

I seldom see any such reciprocity or good will.

This is very sad.

Yes, I know what you are talking about. Of course in all denominatoins, there is a wide divergence of attitudes towards Christians in other denominations. Just for the record, there are many Greek Orthodox (and other Orthodox) who are respectful and friendly to the RCC and other Christian denominations - they know the bad in our history, but also the good - our shared saints, fathers, doctors. Much more balanced (or ‘Christian’ is the word I prefer, frankly). But, as Francis reminds us, every denomination has fundamentalists, and the Orthodox are no exception.

 

[Peter_J]

But, as Francis reminds us, every denomination has fundamentalists

Indeed.

And if I might be slightly tangential, this is partly why, on the (rare ) occasion that I talk about the forum having more than its share of “traditionalist” Catholics, I generally put “traditionalist” in quotes.

 

[FollowChrist34]

Indeed.

And if I might be slightly tangential, this is partly why, on the (rare ) occasion that I talk about the forum having more than its share of “traditionalist” Catholics, I generally put “traditionalist” in quotes.

Yep, I lifted a good one off of Ross Douthat: “I am traditional without being traditionalist.”

And I do understand the need to protect the integrity of doctrine - it is essential. It is very difficult to know what to change and what not to change. But, to me, there are definitely quarrels from the past that have lost a lot of their thunder in today’s world. Christ lives and the Church does too. (“living” does not *always *equal “self-derailing”…)

 

[gnosisofthomas]

First, I would say that I think the Catholic position tends to be that they are both true, that they are like 2 sides to the same coin. Or 2 lungs to the same body.

As far as the divisive issue of authority, including the issue of the Pope, I would side with the Catholic view because it has history and Scripture on its side. Jesus said, “You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church”. And he gave to Peter alone the keys. This argument has been made throughout history dating back to the early church. Even the Orthodox acknowledged the authority of the Pope in the early church, because that is the true orthodox position.

For me its really that simple. Upon Peter Jesus builds his church. And, the gates of Hades does not prevail. No arguing needed. Just simple faith in the words of Jesus.

What I’ve never understood is this: St. Peter also founded the Patriarchate of Antioch, so what gives Rome more authority, when St. Peter founded both?

 

[KathleenGee]

The answer, the Holy Spirit. It is the Holy Spirit Who then led Peter to go to Rome, as did Paul.

There were Jewish Christians there already in Rome, who fled the Diaspora, who worshipped in homes headed by presbyters. Peter and his son Mark helped to formally found the Church. St. Paul likewise.

Both were martyred by Nero between 64 to 67 AD. Linus took the place of Peter as bishop, though Peter was never a bishop, but founding apostle.

The apostles were given the authority by Christ to select their successors so you can rest assured Peter did not leave town without establishing Antioch’s bishop.

 

[Art321]

**The majority also believe that Byzantine rite is superior to the Latin rite. Not small number of uneducated laity believes that Latin west used to have Byzantine rite, but then popes corrupted it and reduced it to this Latin rite of today. **

Some uneducated laity believes that Roman-Catholic Church teaches that papal infallability means that pope is literally sinless like Christ. Many believe that titles such as “Vicarius Filii Dei” is an insult to God.
And i must tell you that there are a lot of conspiracy theories going on inside Orthodox Peoples about Vatican, popes and all that. And generally, People in the East really don’t like the Roman-Catholic Church, they just keep listing crimes from the past, they like to criticize also inquisition.

My apologies for the late reply. Yes, I do believe that there is much confusion on both sides. I’m not qualified to answer all of the things that you brought up, but I do thank you for being honest. Yes this truly gives me an idea on how our Eastern Brethren seem to perceive the Latin Church. The first part in bold is not something that I have heard before and it may be true. I just don’t know but my understanding was the the Rites between the West and East didn’t start in the same way and thus developed individually and separate from each other. I would say that the both Rites are different, yet both are beautiful in their own way.

In the second part, I just want to say that this is simply not true. The Bishop of Rome is a sinful man like anyone else in this world, yet I do believe that he is rightfully the Successor of St. Peter and as such has a special role to play in the universal Church.
Also don’t you think that it is a bit silly to constantly keep bring up the past? We can’t keep moving forward if we always have our hearts and minds on past events that we didn’t even live through. As Christ said we must be willing to forgive those who wrong us and it really isn’t easy! But the way of Christ Himself was never meant to easy after all.

Also Orthodox Christians are alergic to the Liturgical Abuse or any Liturgical change, and when some of them learn what is going on in some Novus Ordo abuses,

And many also don’t like because Roman-Catholic clergy shaves. They see it as symbolical rebellion against Jesus Christ and Apostles who had beards.
Also most don’t believe in split, they believe that Rome broke away from the Church, from the 4 Orthodox Patriarchates, and 4 beats

I do agree that there are have been many abuses in the Holy Mass in the decades since the closing of the Second Vatican Council. Trust me when I tell you that this has angered many Latins and, I do believe that there is currently a reform process to make sure that this doesn’t happen again. Such things are an insult to the Faithful and Christ as the Holy Mass is something that truly is immensely sacred! With regards to the Latin Mass, I don’t believe that it should have been done away with as it was, and from reading some posts here Vatican 2 didn’t mean for the Old Mass to disappear the way it did. I do believe changing the Mass may have been a mistake, or maybe not. Since I have grown with the New Mass, I really don’t have a problem with it when it is done right. I do believe that the Latin Mass should be made available at the same level as the New Mass, as I do believe that the Tridentine Mass is beautiful and better with reverence of the liturgy and it could be that many Catholics from my generation will simply fall in love with it. Yet it is sad for me to say that they don’t even know of it’s existence.

One of the reasons why I love the Divine Liturgies of the East from what I have seen in videos is because of the immense reverence that comes from them. Such beauty cannot be described in words honestly and I can understand why our Eastern Brethren don’t want any changes to be done to them.

The second part is something that I have heard before. Why does it matter if the priests don’t have beards or if they do? What should matter is are they faithful Christians and present the Good News authentically to the world without fear!! I also don’t agree that Rome broke away from the East, but hey! I’m biased! I guess it is fair to say that we broke apart from each other… in the end, I do believe that this whole issue of unity boils down to the issue of the papacy. I do think every other issue can be worked out.

And so, I think we can all agree on this… On this particular issue, only one communion is right and I say this with honestly, not to start an argument.

Who is that? That’s why we are here!

 

[Art321]

Having taken a course on Catholicism, I do believe to my knowledge that Rome considers other faiths to be heterodox. So Protestants are heterodox Christians, where they believe in certain doctrines that are not orthodox/rooted in tradition. It’s similar to not being the fullness of truth as Protestants lack a lot, and are basically synonyms as far as I am concerned. However, they have different connotations, and as such would be the result of the ecumenical effort since Vatican II (instead of saying Orthodox are in schism and have separated from the mother church, they would prefer to say “separated brethren” nowadays).
Heterodoxy as far as I know would not apply to nonChristians since they are of completely different religions. Here they may still have truth, so “lack of fullness of truth” basically applies to all non-Catholic denominations/religions while heterodoxy only applies to Christians that are non-Catholic with substantially different theology.

However, as far as I know, Rome has never applied heterodoxy to Orientals/Eastern Orthodox from Rome’s point of view since it is not heresy that divides them from Rome, but not submitting to the pontiff (schism). But yet, they prefer to say separated brethren than “those in schism” in modern dialogue.

And in terms of being called Orthodox, I think both have their roots in the early church, where the markers of the true church was being “one, holy, catholic, apostolic” church. Here catholic is used as an adjective/marker, not as a proper adjective as the Roman Catholic church uses today (not sure how the church is addressed in official documents though).

Orthodox was also used in the first millenium as well to differentiate between the heterodox (insert heresy here) and those who kept the faith. And at this point this was before the schism, so both catholic, orthodox, christian were all used I think.

The “Orthodox” as a proper adjective only came later after the schism (not directly after, but some time later I think) to differentiate from Rome since they started using catholic as a proper adjective.

Although, in official orthodox documents, I think the church is not referred to as “Eastern Orthodox” (modern label) but as “apostolic, catholic, etc. church.”

I’m sure other Orthodox can give a more nuanced answer.

Yes, I do believe that you are right in regards to the other faiths. The Church of Rome does indeed teach that there are elements of truth throughout the religions of the world, as God inscribes into our hearts and souls His Word. I believe that we are taught that which is true can remain and only that which is heterodox must be thrown away. The fullness of Truth can be found in the Eastern Churches and the Church of Rome unlike any other place in the world.

It truly is interesting in regards as to how we called ourselves in the first millennium! And yes, I do seem to believe that the Eastern Church referred to itself as Orthodox much later after the schism and only to differentiate from Rome. The universal Church was called one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church though it was St. Ignatius of Antioch that called the universal Church as Catholic!

See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is administered either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude of the people also be; even as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. —*Letter to the Smyrnaeans *

One of my favorite quotes and if reunion does happen, let’s keep the name!
The faith I believe was referred to as the orthodox faith and we were all called simply Christians.

Thank you for the response brother! I have another question. What are some of the most beautiful churches that have been built by our Eastern Brethren? I would love to visit some in the future.

 

[KathleenGee]

I prefer to call myself really a Universal Christian, this the name given to our Church comprised of all patriarchs by St. Ignatius of Antioch on his way to martyrdom in 107 AD.

I see things in both the Latin Church and the Eastern Church that I both like and dislike. I imagine a reunified Church that fills each other’s gaps to perfect each as truly one – as was Our Lord’s prayer at the Last Supper, that we may be as one.

I also am observing, of what little I know, of coming to conclusions without all the facts.

I also am reading the rebuttal to James White, a prominent anti Catholic who references early Church Fathers but with little actual draw from them. He used Honorius as a good example that popes are heretics.

Before Honorius, the Church already condemned this heresy regarding the number of wills of Christ. Honorius took the side to silence the argument, yes to avoid upset and confusion among the believers, but also because it was making an issue of something that was not there. Afterall, we all know Christ said not His will be done in regard to his human nature, but the Heavenly Father’s will be done. Where Honorius erred was pastoral. He should have clarified and taught true doctrine.

So Honorius was not a heretic but his flaw was in failure to clearly teach the Church’s already established position.

I listened on EWTN to a gentleman studying two master’s degrees in a Protestant divinity school. And as he went deeper into studies, he also came up with the issue of Honorius. I can’t remember the details but someone directed him to a priest on the other side of the bay in San Franciso. He went to meet the priest who then showed him the reference of Honorius and his actual position, and from that this man became a Catholic.

 

[ericc]

In answer to your other question, the Orthodox do not believe that if the 5 patriarchates fall into heresy then all is lost. This is not so. For the Orthodox, as long as there are believers who hold strong to true doctrine, whether it be a few monks, laymen, or a simple parish priest, then the gates of hell have yet to triumph against the Church established by our Lord Jesus Christ.

This is new to me. Can you point me to a source where this is the understanding, perhaps the Church Fathers or an authoritative source? I almost want to blurt out that it is ridiculous for Jesus to mean that. A single man is all you need to prevent the gates of hades from prevailing?

I’m just merely taking the words of the Sixth Ecumenical Council and Pope Leo II over that of St. Maximus, despite the fact of how much respect I have for the man. What is more respectable? One church father or the consensus of an ecumenical council?

Since the Council didn’t declare St Maximus words are in error, you are engaging in fallacious reasoning to impute that Maximus is in error with respect to this particular subject. First relying on his mistakes elsewhere, you mention filioque for eg and secondly on what the Council didn’t say about Maximus. I’d want to establish as a fact what Maximus wrote about Honorius is actually erroneous and not supposition.

 

[ericc]

"“Equally we anathemize the authors of new errors, that is, Bishop Theodorus of Pharan, Cyrus of Alexandria, Sergius, Paul, Peter the successors of the Church of Constantinople; [enemies, that is, instigators as governors in greatness] as bishops in greatness, and also Honorius, who did not illustrate this apostolic church of apostolic tradition in doctrine, but in resounding treachery it was endeavored to subvert the immaculate faith [G., he permitted the immaculate to be stained].”

Here Leo lists a number of major monthelite heretics. And he lists Honorius as one of them. The second excerpt is especially important in this regard.

"Truly most pious emperor in the grace of the Holy Spirit, and (who) endured the work before the pure will of the Christian faith, who struggled to purify the catholic church of God from the upmost erroneous efforts of heretics in sin, and whoever was able to generate offense to the Christian people, are made removed from the midst of the church of God, and all authors of heretical assertions, they are condemned by the consensual council for venerating [errors], they are thrown out from the union of the catholic church, that is, Bishop Theodorus of Pharan, Cyrus of Alexandria, Sergius, Paul, Phyrrhus and Peter, those bishops of Constantinople, and one with these the Roman Honorius, who consented to have stained the immaculate rule of apostolic tradition, which he received from his predecessors;"

In the second quote, Honorius is called a heretical author and venerator. He is condemned even more so specifically because his case was a big embarrassment to Rome, which had largely remained a bulwark against previous major heresies.

If I recall correctly, Sergius wrote in Greek, which I cannot read. However, from what I can gather from Honorius’ letter is that it was Honorius who insisted on silence on these doctrinal matters. Instead of asserting correct doctrine, Honorius argued that publicly, the matter should not be discussed because it was a source of division amongst the church. And Honorius was right to say such, because it was. However, Honorius also said that Christ had one will as a matter of personal opinion. Arguably this does not constitute as ex cathedra. However, it still remains that Honorius personally taught and affirmed heresy to Sergius. This is explicitly why Honorius’ letter proved so invaluable to the monothelite heretics.

I think you missed the point I am trying to established. I want to establish that Honorius TAUGHT heresy. None of what you indicate in your post show that.

1. Grouping Honorius with Patriarchs that taught heresy does not make him a teacher of heresy.
2. Grouping Honorius with authors of heresy does not prove he taught heresy, even if he were to write something heretical.

Ignoring the other writings showing Honorius to be orthodox is cherry picking of evidence.

I am not denying that his writings can be used to by monothelites to further their cause. I am saying what he wrote is not necessarily heretical of which he has been defended by his successors and Maximus. Perhaps he is being dense and clueless as to what Sergius did with his letter but the substance of what he wrote can not be deem clearly heretical. Repeating the one will quote is not going to help your explanation because that has been explained by Pope John, Maximus and others. Honorius second letter clarifies his orthodox position. Repeating the “one-will” quote is quoting out of context. Is Honorius a heretic? May be he is if one just focus on 2 words that he wrote. But his second letter tell us he is not. So what is he? A hypocrite? Perhaps but there is not enough information to confirm this. Hypocrisy is not heresy. Did he TEACH heresy. Clearly not. But he did prolonged the heresy but permitting silence when in fact he should have strongly and clearly spoke out for the 2 wills 2 natures of Christ. For which he is grouped together with the others.

 

[Rohzek]

This is new to me. Can you point me to a source where this is the understanding, perhaps the Church Fathers or an authoritative source? I almost want to blurt out that it is ridiculous for Jesus to mean that. A single man is all you need to prevent the gates of hades from prevailing?

No, for Christ said where two or more gather in his name there he will be. I provided Timothy Ware’s The Orthodox Church for further understanding.

Since the Council didn’t declare St Maximus words are in error, you are engaging in fallacious reasoning to impute that Maximus is in error with respect to this particular subject. First relying on his mistakes elsewhere, you mention filioque for eg and secondly on what the Council didn’t say about Maximus. I’d want to establish as a fact what Maximus wrote about Honorius is actually erroneous and not supposition.

You have two mutually exclusive positions. The Council declared Honorius a heretic. Therefore, their position is at odds with Maximus’, which is that Honorius was not a heretic. Either both are false or only one of them is true. You cannot logically say that both positions are true.

You also have to take into account that Maximus first said that Honorius was referring to the human will in one letter. Then in another letter he said that there was simply a mistranslation, which isn’t probable given the version at the Council was approved by the papal representatives. If anything Maximus is using contradictory arguments to find a way to say Honorius wasn’t a heretic.

 

[Rohzek]

I think you missed the point I am trying to established. I want to establish that Honorius TAUGHT heresy. None of what you indicate in your post show that.

1. Grouping Honorius with Patriarchs that taught heresy does not make him a teacher of heresy.
2. Grouping Honorius with authors of heresy does not prove he taught heresy, even if he were to write something heretical.

Ignoring the other writings showing Honorius to be orthodox is cherry picking of evidence.

I am not denying that his writings can be used to by monothelites to further their cause. I am saying what he wrote is not necessarily heretical of which he has been defended by his successors and Maximus. Perhaps he is being dense and clueless as to what Sergius did with his letter but the substance of what he wrote can not be deem clearly heretical. Repeating the one will quote is not going to help your explanation because that has been explained by Pope John, Maximus and others. Honorius second letter clarifies his orthodox position. Repeating the “one-will” quote is quoting out of context. Is Honorius a heretic? May be he is if one just focus on 2 words that he wrote. But his second letter tell us he is not. So what is he? A hypocrite? Perhaps but there is not enough information to confirm this. Hypocrisy is not heresy. Did he TEACH heresy. Clearly not. But he did prolonged the heresy but permitting silence when in fact he should have strongly and clearly spoke out for the 2 wills 2 natures of Christ. For which he is grouped together with the others.

In answer to #1, this much would be true if it were not for the fact that Honorius did in fact teach heresy to Sergius. Grouping him together with the other heretics is actually very significant because it shows that his crimes were no different than those of whom he was grouped with.

In answer to #2, you need to define what you mean by taught. I have a feeling that our definitions might be different.

Please explain to me how the following is out of context at all. The one will quote is significant with the additions I provided because it PROVES that Maximus’ argument that Honorius was only referring to the human nature to be patently false. Honorius clearly considered both natures, yet declared one will. This makes John IV and Maximus’ explanations seem to be nothing more than desperate attempts to save face. This is exactly why Pope Leo II years later didn’t even bother defending Honorius. He condemned him for teaching heresy:

Dum profecto divinitas nec crucifigi potuit, nec passiones humanas experiri vel perpeti; sed propter ineffabilem conjunctionem humanae divinaeque naturae, idcirco et ubique Deus dicitur pati, et humanitas ex coelo cum divinitate descendisse. Unde et unam voluntatem fatemur Domini nostri Jesu Christi, quia profecto a divinitate assumpta est nostra natura, non culpa, illa profecto quae ante peccatum creata est, non quae post praevaricationem vitiata.

While truly the godhead is neither able to be crucified nor to have endured human sufferings, it is because of the ineffable conjunction of human and divine natures that it is therefore said everywhere that God suffered and descended from heaven with humanity. And whence I confess one will of our Lord Jesus Christ, because truly he assumed our nature from divinity, without guilt, therein truly he who is made before sin, not after the corrupt transgression [Fall of Man].

As for me ignoring the second letter, I am not. I am merely stating the indisputable dogmatic truth that having two wills, whether they be opposing or parallel, has absolutely nothing to do with personhood. The single personhood of Christ was never in dispute. The mere fact that Honorius thought that Christ having two wills might imply that there are two Christs only goes to further substantiate my case of how poorly he understood anything properly. He mistook will residing in person rather than in natures, which is what the Sixth Council proclaimed as dogma. The will resides in nature, not person. I’ll be more than happy to address the second letter specifically when I find the time later, hopefully today.